Unpublished Disposition, 927 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1985)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Harold M. Lee appeals pro se the district court's order denying his petition to remove to federal court a criminal case being prosecuted against him in Hawaii state court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The district court's denial of a petition for removal is a question of law which we review de novo. See, e.g., United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (de novo review of questions of law), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

Lee contends that the district court erred in denying his petition to remove to federal court a criminal case then pending against him in Hawaii state court. In the state criminal case, CR. No. 85-1446, Lee was accused of Robbery in the First Degree under section 708-840(1) (b) (ii) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes stemming from a hold-up of the Central Pacific Bank on or about October 25, 1985. Because the robbery occurred at a bank, Lee contends that the federal courts have "original jurisdiction" under the federal bank robbery statutes. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Lee, however, is mistaken. States have independent jurisdiction to enforce their own criminal statutes even if the act is proscribed by both federal and state statutes. See United States v. Mikka, 586 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1978) ("the double jeopardy provisions of the fifth amendment are not implicated by state and federal prosecutions even for identical offenses"), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 921 (1979); accord Goode v. McCune, 543 F.2d 751, 753 (10th Cir. 1976) (upholding defendant's state and federal robbery convictions, based upon the same bank robbery).

Here, Lee was accused of, and eventually plead guilty to, robbery under Hawaii's state criminal statutes. Lee was never charged with a federal crime of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 in connection with the events of October 25, 1985. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying his petition for removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) & (c) (4) (" [i]f it clearly appears on the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed thereto that the petition for removal should not be granted, the court shall make an order for its summary dismissal").

AFFIRMED.